It's difficult to be very rough on a first teaser poster for a movie that isn't even scheduled to hit theaters for another eight months and I don't think this one's all that bad. It's eerily engrossing. It's not terribly inspiring, mind you...no photo of a cast member, potential spoiler image or any bright colors...but the Enterprise is visible and the stark B & W imagery obviously reflects the somewhat foreboding tone of the new film based on what we've been told thus far.

Not great. But not awful. I guess it accomplishes what it's supposed to.

^It's the lower edge of the Starfleet arrowhead emblem. Although, yeah, it does suggest a hilltop or something.

It seems very dark and ominous for ST, but maybe the idea is that, as with the Star Wars OT, the second film is like the second act in a three-act story, where complications set in and the situation becomes worse, with the third film/act being the resolution that makes things better again. Maybe the third film will be Star Trek Into Light?

There's too much that doesn't add up in the poster for it to feel real... bad quality image, extremely degraded artefacting, no overall feel or theme to it, extremely bad contrast down to the bottom left of the poster, and overall starfield that seems to be 'edited' into the Trek 'chevron' logo, but with a few being 'missed out' over on the far right of the poster...

Ohhh. Right. I see that now. I wonder what that weird tree like bit at the lower middle on the edge is, though.

It seems very dark and ominous for ST, but maybe the idea is that, as with the Star Wars OT, the second film is like the second act in a three-act story, where complications set in and the situation becomes worse, with the third film/act being the resolution that makes things better again.

Click to expand...

I've assumed they're doing that. I mean the first movie was basically an origin story, and if you're making a trilogy of films it's a clear next move.

I do notice that Simon Pegg's name isn't listed in the cast credits of the poster. Odd. But that by itself isn't necessarily evidence that the poster is a fake. There are some movie posters here and there where the entire lead cast isn't listed so they can leave enough space to include the guest stars' names.

RE: Christopher. It's currently on Facebook and being promoted by several fan pages. That isn't a ringing endorsement, but it's not necessarily a condemnation either. If it's phony we'll discover soon enough. Let's keep an open mind until then.

This article does say that a new teaser poster would be up in theaters any day now (it was published on Sept. 9th). That doesn't mean this poster is the real deal or not, but one should be forthcoming.

Taking it as real for a moment for the purposes of speculation, the image hints at two possibilities related to the two most popular plot theories for the film.

One, the severely upthrust hill and mass of rock and soil (or lava) being ejected into the air toward the bottom of the Starfleet arrowhead reminds me of the final death throes of the Genesis Planet before it exploded, hinting at a possible Khan appearance.

Two, the top part of the arrowhead with its field of stars, thick outer border, and then blackness outside of that implies leaving the galaxy, traveling through the galactic barrier, and going "Into Darkness" both literally and figuratively to find a planet (presumably not Delta Vega this time) where the effects of the barrier turn Gary Mitchell into a danger to the crew.

I haven't been paying attention to much of the scuttlebutt about the movie this time, so pardon me if either of those rumors are outdated, but that's my two cents on what the poster could mean.

I do notice that Simon Pegg's name isn't listed in the cast credits of the poster. Odd. But that by itself isn't necessarily evidence that the poster is a fake. There are some movie posters here and there where the entire lead cast isn't listed so they can leave enough space to include the guest stars' names.

Click to expand...

But there are other telling oddities. There's no credit for composer Michael Giacchino or costume designer Michael Kaplan, as there was in the previous film's poster, and the credit for DP Dan Mindel is right before the director credit. There's a credit for one of the two co-producers, Tommy Gormley, but not the other, and co-producers generally don't get listed on the poster. There's also apparently a credit for someone named Ben Burman, and IMDb lists nobody of that name associated with the film; maybe the creator of the poster meant Ben Burtt, or the first film's prosthetic makeup designer Barney Burman. Also, the opening line should probably say "PARAMOUNT PICTURES and SKYDANCE PRODUCTIONS present a BAD ROBOT production." The 2009 film listed Paramount and Spyglass, its production partner on that, and Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol, also a co-production with Skydance, listed their name at the start of the credits.

And most importantly, there's no "Based upon STAR TREK created by Gene Roddenberry" credit.

So yeah, I think we can safely cue Senator Vreenak: "It's a faaaake!" Or at best it's a rough draft that got released prematurely before the kinks were worked out, but I doubt it.

It seems very dark and ominous for ST, but maybe the idea is that, as with the Star Wars OT, the second film is like the second act in a three-act story, where complications set in and the situation becomes worse, with the third film/act being the resolution that makes things better again. Maybe the third film will be Star Trek Into Light?

Click to expand...

This makes total sense when viewed in the light of what Pine said which, IMO, implies cliffhanging ending:

Pine doesn’t know about any plans for Star Trek 3, but he assumes there will be one. “Knowing these guys, there’s always a way to make some more installments,” he said. “I’m sure they’ve built-in something, I’m just not smart enough to have seen it!

Or at best it's a rough draft that got released prematurely before the kinks were worked out.

Click to expand...

This might be a distinct possibility. It doesn't scream "obvious fake" to me, but then on the other hand certain details are missing as you thoughtfully pointed out. A fake---to be convincing enough to trick the Trek community as a whole---would likely include some of the details you mentioned just so the Photoshoppers could cover all their bases and avoid early detection of fakery. If Trek fans with Photoshop skills are anything, it's anally retentive. Trust me. I've known a few over the years.

If not the official first poster, it might be a Paramount first run/draft that leaked out.

A couple of normally reliable fan pages on Facebook were displaying it as the genuine article. And like Locutus posted on the previous page, this is more or less the date that Paramount is supposed to release the first poster image for the film.